Another Royalty Owner Bites the Dust

The Texas Supreme Court has once again reversed a jury verdict in favor of a royalty owner, holding that their claim is barred by limitations. The Court today issued its opinion in Shell Oil Company v Ross, reversing the judgments of the courts below in favor of Ross for $72,000 in unpaid royalties.

Ross’ lease required that royalties on gas be based on the “amount realized” by the lessee. But from 1988 to 1994 Shell paid royalties based on a weighted-average price instead of the price it received for the gas. Then from 1994 to 1997, Shell paid royalties based on an internally generated “transfer price,” which Shell admitted it could not explain. In both cases, Shell admitted that it had not paid royalties as required by the lease. Its sole defense was that the royalty owner had failed to bring his claim within the four-year statute of limiations.

The jury found that Shell fraudulently concealed its failure to pay royalty, and that Ross, exercising reasonable diligence, could not have discovered the royalty underpayment until 2002. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury’s findings.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Lehrman, held that, “as a matter of law,” the evidence showed that Ross should have discovered the royalty underpayments when they were made from information that was “readily accessible and publicly available.”

Ross argued that he reasonably relied on the gas price Shell put in his royalty statements, because a Texas statute requires Shell to report on the check stub the price it received for the sale of the gas. The Court disagreed. It held that a royalty owner in effect must assume that the gas price on the royalty check stub is not accurate. “Reasonable diligence requires that owners of property interests make themselves aware of relevant information available in the public record.”

What public information should Ross have looked at? First, said the Court, Ross should have asked Shell what price it was receiving for the gas. Or, Ross could have asked the companies to whom Shell sold the gas what price they paid. Or, Ross could have compared the price to a publicly available index price, which “would have informed the Rosses that Shell was underpaying royalty.” Ross could have researched records at the Texas General Land Office to see what price the State was receiving for its royalty interest in the same wells.

The Court’s opinion confirms the statements made by Justice Sharp of the Houston First District Court of Appeals in Samson Lone Star v. Hooks, decided earlier this year:

I reluctantly concur, based on the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in BP America Production Co. v. Marshall, 342 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. 2011). In that case, the Texas Supreme Court makes clear that no lies on the part of a lessee, however self-serving and egregious, are sufficient to toll limitations, as long as it is technically possible for the lessor to have discovered the lie by resort to the Railroad Commission records. This burden the Court imposes upon lessors is severe. It is now a lessor’s duty to presume that any statement made by its lessee is false and to ransack the esoteric and oft-changing records at the Railroad Commission to discover the truth or falsity of its lessee’s statements. If, as is often the case, these records are technical in nature and require expert review to ferret out the truth, it is the lessor’s job to hire experts out of its own pocket to perform such a review. If a lessor fails to take these steps, then it will have failed in exercising reasonable diligence to protect its mineral interests and, if the lessee’s fraud is successful for longer than the limitations period, the lessor’s claims will be barred by limitations.

The lesson: mineral owners should reserve the right to audit their royalty payments, and they should exercise that right at least every 3 to 4 years, to be sure that their royalties are being paid in accordance with their lease.

This Blog/Web Site is made available for educational purposes only as well as to give general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.